If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I was very excited to see that scene, it's quite interesting. I love anything to do with Luke's ROTJ lightsaber, so hearing the audience go nuts when they see it was great. That said, I TOTALLY see why this was pulled from the film. Not only does it detract from the reveal of the lightsaber later, but Vader's dialog is totally corny, "LUUUUUUKE! LUUUUUUUUUUuuuuUUUuuke!" - WTF, is he a Scooby Doo villain pretending to be a ghost?

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

Yes. That's mainly because film is an analog format and thus, in theory, the potential resolution is infinite. The limitations (if you can really use that word) of the resolutions are based upon the devices that are capturing and transmitting the images. However, older movies were filmed using equipment that was unable to use even the resolution possible on film today. To release any such movie in HD means either that A) no alteration has been done, and all the flaws will be painfully obvious, or B) someone has to re-create part of the image digitally. The short of it is that if you're watching, say, The Ed Sullivan Show in HD (to use an example that'd be particularly hyperbolic, and one that you can probably find on your local PBS station if they transmit in HD), it's either going to look horrible, or it's not actually The Ed Sullivan Show that aired 50 years ago. You can't clean it up for HD, you have to basically re-create it.

HD is 1080x1920 resolution, anamorphic Panavision 35mm (like that used on Star Wars) is about 2485x2970 after you take into account the film grain and lens limitations. But that doesn't take into account the multi-pass processing that many of the effects shots required, each step lowering the quality and resolution. Youtube has already shown that it can deliver video in a format MUCH higher than Star Wars could deliver (the analog-shot movies or the digitally-shot ones), but since the current HD format tops out at 1080x1920, that's what Blu-Ray delivers. Since it's a high-density data delivery medium however, it is certainly not LIMITED to the current HD specs.

Honestly, this argument reminds me too much of the audiophile complaints about digital music vs. the "warmth" of analog music media (that "warmth" being the inaccuracies of the needle-to-groove format, the rest is still available either via settings or if one wants to drop the cash on the tube experience to amplify digital music.)

And how is it able to display so many scan lines, when DVD cannot, and both are discs of the same size that are "played" using a laser beam (regardless of color)? It's the amount of space available. A DVD cannot hold enough data to convey the same number of scan lines that a blu-ray can. The advantage that a blu-ray has is that the data can be stored more densely (IIRC, due to the shorter wavelength of the blue laser) on a blu-ray than on a DVD, thus allowing it to store the same movie in more detail.

The resulting quality difference is somewhat similar to saving an image as a JPG for the web vs a TIF or PSD for print--for the web, the image has to be saved in a smaller form for quick transmission and display on a wide range of monitors and, thus, has to be compressed in a manner that will result in loss of quality; the print version is usually at 300 or 600 dpi (or, in some cases, higher) and is designed for reproduction in a form that allows far more possible colors than a monitor (theoretically infinite vs millions), and has to be much, much bigger. So you can e-mail a web image easily, but the IT Department at your job might get upset if you try to e-mail an image intended for print without finding some way to compress it first.

This doesn't take into account newer codecs, which Blu-Ray has that DVD has not. The Blu-Ray player is designed for more efficient codecs and with more system resources than a DVD player, and a Blu-Ray player is designed to be adaptive to change where a DVD player is a static device that never upgrades or adds new codecs.

Originally Posted by sith_killer_99

Well...

I hear they painted the grass green for "The Sound of Music" and while it looks fine on the big screen, and DVD, in the Blu-Ray version it becomes painfully obvious.

I'm just sayin'

I've heard that. I suspect, like the garbage mattes visible on home video versions of Star Wars, that it shows up due to a combination of resolution and an active-light medium over the passive-light medium of the movie projector bouncing off the silver screen.

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

I didn't say a higher resolution won't look more like the potential of film, since a higher number is, by definition, closer to infinity. I said that the resolution of an image on film is dependent upon the equipment used to capture the image.

If I took a picture in 1860, it's simply not going to be as sharp as a picture taken using the highest quality film camera available now, aside from deterioration. I can digitally touch up the picture from 1860 to make it look just as good as far as the human eye can tell, but, somewhere along the line, it ceases to be the same picture and becomes a facsimile. Even for the most minor improvement in quality, there's some judgment involved.

An old movie, even a poor-quality one, can be made to look gorgeous, but there's a point (and different people will have different opinions on where that point exists) where restoration ends and re-creation begins. That's why I said "fake HD," even if it's not the best terminology for what I meant, which is that the films weren't made in HD due to technological limitations.

By that argument, you've NEVER seen Star Wars even once, only its facsimiles. Every copy you've seen, in theater or at home, is made from a master print that has never been played for the likes of you or me. In the analog days, each print made from the master was notably degraded from the original, and then would get spliced up by projectionists as it broke or wore. There's a bar you're setting really high which is unfair IMO, a lot of transfers are faithful without being Ted Turner's colorizations of It's A Wonderful Life with purple skies and blue trees.

Just because an old movie is old doesn't mean that it's being "made" gorgeous, sometimes capturing it digitally is totally true to the original. Look at these photographs as an analogy to what I'm saying: http://gizmodo.com/5605061/unearthed...limpse-at-life
Those were taken in the early '40s and look like they could have been shot much more recently without any tampering at all.

Originally Posted by Bel-Cam Jos

If it's ONLY on Blu-Ray, I'd have to buy a player, too, if I decided to get it. But if it's on both DVD and R-R, I'll definitely pick these up (especially if it's in a set).

I really doubt it's going to be on DVD, that medium is very limited, not enough room for the extras and the menus and such, and is being devalued by $5 DVD bins everywhere.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

I really doubt it's going to be on DVD, that medium is very limited, not enough room for the extras and the menus and such, and is being devalued by $5 DVD bins everywhere.

I could be totally wrong, but I thought Steve Sansweet was discussing this on the Forcecast at some point after he unofficially announced this back at Comic Con or whenever it was. As I recall, he said it would also be coming on DVD, since so many people still haven't upgraded. But if it does come out that way again, I assume it'll be like The Clone Wars releases, where the Blu-Ray has more features that the DVD doesn't.

This will probably be what finally convinces me to buy a Blu-Ray player.

It would be kind of a bummer if it's an "all or nothing" type of set where I'd have to buy all six films at once, but I'm sure that they will be available individually later on to cater to the more casual Blu-Ray consumer. All I really care about is the ROTJ cut scenes, though. Hopefully, we'll see some extra stuff from the Skiff Battle.

"To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence… When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

So it probably would require quite a lot of money to do a full-blown restoration on each one of the film's remaining original cut prints and then have it converted to digital. Plus I fully support his artistic choice of not releasing those cuts.

Well, it's too bad that the Star Wars films never actually made Lucas any money to justify his restoration of them to their original theatrical releases.

As for Lucas' artistic vision, we all know what that is: to envision himself with as much money as possible. So, I'm sure we'll see the original versions someday.

"To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence… When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

Just as long as Luke's ANH Intro, Camie/Fixer/Biggs/Luke, The Wampa Room, and The Sandstorm Squence are all included, I'll be giddy. Hopefully all of them they can find are. But those especially are pretty major.

After reading that list, if the majority (if not all) are inlcuded as extras, I will DEFINITELY buy a blu-ray player just for the set. I'd really like to think Lucas will also offer Liam Neeson whatever he wants to film his spirit talking to Yoda (even if it's just a voice-over) for the end of ROTS, a scene I maintain should have been in the movie all along.

Now, if Spielberg will have enough sense to release ET and the Indiana Jones quartet with all of THEIR deleted scenes finally included as extras, I'll be rebuying more than the trilogy to make my blu-ray player worth it!

The cost of preparing the original cuts for a blu-ray has been way overstated, in the belief that people won't know any better. It actually wouldn't be more than something like The Last Starfighter or Friday the 13th Part 2. just sayin'

The cost of preparing the original cuts for a blu-ray has been way overstated, in the belief that people won't know any better. It actually wouldn't be more than something like The Last Starfighter or Friday the 13th Part 2. just sayin'

From what I understand, the original master copies of the original films were changed to the Special Editions, as in, the edits were done on the original film, and not a copy of it. So repairing it to its "original" version would be more difficult than simply taking the film and slapping it on a Blu-Ray disc.